Phone call bright and early. The long-absent Massimo.
"Egg in your lap, eh Charlie?"
"The phrase is on your face, and what the hell are you talking about?"
'The Greeks, Charlie, the Greeks. They just do more than 4 Billion in T-Bills. How do you like that?"
"They did WHAT!? Who bought it?"
"I'ma no know, ma she's a good job, no? See Charlie, you know Europa good, ma not THAT good."
And he hung up on me chuckling. OK I admit it, I'm Gob smacked. I never thought they would come anywhere close to that number, I don't know who bid on it or whether it all got dumped into the ECB. But I will by tomorrow. What it does tell me, however, is that the Greeks will get their tranche at a point because nobody in the know is going to have this slug of debt with damn firm assurances that it will be refinanced. And so the creditors get paid on Friday and the sound of that tin can being kicked down that European road echos loudly in the night. The lengths to which the Euro will go: they'll even embarrass me.
Big pow-wow up on the Hill tomorrow. In case you missed it, and that was easy to do, the Euros announced the final version over the weekend of Basel III and the U.S. promptly announced that we would delay implementation. Oh year, there are higher Tier I capital requirement's (as useful as Mammary glands on a boar hog) but the rest looks remarkably like Basel II to include the near-zero call on capital for sovereign debt which as you might remember demolished the Euro banking system right at the start of this rodeo. The bankers and politicos are going to sit down and to decide how we should modify Basel III for our purposes which should take most of the day thereby avoiding the need to deal with anything either important or controversial. A day like all days. And speaking of that, The Leader just moments ago announced how he will solve the fiscal problems of the nation: Tax the Rich. News at eleven. The rest must wait until tomorrow.
Showing posts with label Basel III. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Basel III. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
"THAT BASEL III THINGY..."
...as Sarah Palin might have said. Before going any further, you have to understand that regulators love hard and fast measurable rules. Follow them, you are a good guy, come up short, well, sorry for you old boy but...Of course these rules do very little to make the system any safer but they certainly do make the regulator's life a lot easier. The application of objective standards to what is a totally subjective business and expect the mere presence of the same to insure the orderly running of the system has always seemed to me to be straight out of Alice in Wonderland but what do I know.
Anyway, we have Basel III formulated primarily by folks who dread looking forward and therefore work arduously at solving yesterday's problems. There appears to be the view in Europe and other parts of the globe that all the latest difficulties facing the financial world were caused by real estate. Probably true. Therefore let's make sure that we protect ourselves from real estate lending by requiring more capital to be placed against a real estate portfolio. Probably dumb but it sure looks good to the great unwashed out there who don't have a clue as to what is going on. The fact that the next crisis (and there will be one) will undoubtedly have nothing to do with real estate is lost upon a group who desperately need an objective, measurable standard to which they can point and proclaim success in allowing us all to sleep better at night. And so, in one way or another, emerges the number of 7% of primary capital (common equity for the most part) which of course, in an environment such as 2008, by any objective measurement would be gone in about 30 seconds.
What really has been accomplished is a God-awful fight between interest groups over here where bank real estate and particularly home mortgage lending is popular and the Euros where such activity isn't. Needless to say, before there is even a hint of adoption, millions are being spent on how to change the proposed rules or avoid them in the event of passage. Where unanimity is demanded, conflict reigns, and an advance of dubious value at best becomes a lighting rod for unbridled (and brazen) self-interest. If adopted, would home mortgage lending disappear in the United States. No, but the cost of such lending would certainly rise. Are we any safer as consumers? No but we will be poorer. But maybe we will sleep better at night.
Basel III is more than this but I give you just on example of what regulation designed to fulfill political not economic requirements produces. So too the stance of U.S. regulators on the trading of derivatives. Many voices, including that of your humble scribe have warned that we risk driving this business away from where it can be monitored to venues where we have no control at all. Sure enough, that is exactly what happened with the announcement by a number of institutions, to include DBS of Singapore--a BIG player--that they will not register to trade with any U.S. firm. Bye, bye business for our side and bye, bye oversight. And what have we accomplished? It is still out there but now we know less about the risk than before.
Look, my position is not that we should abandon all regulation but that we should demand responsible and meaningful regulation, and while we are at it I do wish that we would spend more time on the people and the morays (or morality) of this business for as I am fond of saying it always comes back to the people. I've moralized enough for one day but I'll be ready for a bit more on this topic next week. In between, there is a great weekend of college football coming up. Maybe those kids on the fields can show us all how the game--any game--should be played.
Have a great weekend.
Anyway, we have Basel III formulated primarily by folks who dread looking forward and therefore work arduously at solving yesterday's problems. There appears to be the view in Europe and other parts of the globe that all the latest difficulties facing the financial world were caused by real estate. Probably true. Therefore let's make sure that we protect ourselves from real estate lending by requiring more capital to be placed against a real estate portfolio. Probably dumb but it sure looks good to the great unwashed out there who don't have a clue as to what is going on. The fact that the next crisis (and there will be one) will undoubtedly have nothing to do with real estate is lost upon a group who desperately need an objective, measurable standard to which they can point and proclaim success in allowing us all to sleep better at night. And so, in one way or another, emerges the number of 7% of primary capital (common equity for the most part) which of course, in an environment such as 2008, by any objective measurement would be gone in about 30 seconds.
What really has been accomplished is a God-awful fight between interest groups over here where bank real estate and particularly home mortgage lending is popular and the Euros where such activity isn't. Needless to say, before there is even a hint of adoption, millions are being spent on how to change the proposed rules or avoid them in the event of passage. Where unanimity is demanded, conflict reigns, and an advance of dubious value at best becomes a lighting rod for unbridled (and brazen) self-interest. If adopted, would home mortgage lending disappear in the United States. No, but the cost of such lending would certainly rise. Are we any safer as consumers? No but we will be poorer. But maybe we will sleep better at night.
Basel III is more than this but I give you just on example of what regulation designed to fulfill political not economic requirements produces. So too the stance of U.S. regulators on the trading of derivatives. Many voices, including that of your humble scribe have warned that we risk driving this business away from where it can be monitored to venues where we have no control at all. Sure enough, that is exactly what happened with the announcement by a number of institutions, to include DBS of Singapore--a BIG player--that they will not register to trade with any U.S. firm. Bye, bye business for our side and bye, bye oversight. And what have we accomplished? It is still out there but now we know less about the risk than before.
Look, my position is not that we should abandon all regulation but that we should demand responsible and meaningful regulation, and while we are at it I do wish that we would spend more time on the people and the morays (or morality) of this business for as I am fond of saying it always comes back to the people. I've moralized enough for one day but I'll be ready for a bit more on this topic next week. In between, there is a great weekend of college football coming up. Maybe those kids on the fields can show us all how the game--any game--should be played.
Have a great weekend.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
BACK TO BASICS?
All quiet on the Euroland front which does me no good and them neither. Soooooo....
I've been meaning to get back to commenting on the state of banking regulation here and there but to be perfectly honest I really don't understand the state of play and everytime I ask someone supposedly in the know they claim not to know anything either. One thing we do know is that piece of rubbish known as Dodd/Frank, which was supposed to be up and running in July remains in the drafting room with a miriade of problems not the least of which is "the Volker Rule" which, as anticipated and predicted, has tured into a lawmakers nightmare. Definitionally, it was always bound to be difficult but despite claims that "we're almost there" and "it will be ready by the end of the year" it has fallen afoul of the classic D.C. syndrome of the "Turf War." You see, no less than five different entities are claiming ownership of this piece of business and while the banking boys (Fed, FDIC & Treasury) claim there are of one mind, they are not. Lay over that the Commodities lot led by the dreadful Gensler and the SEC which is being proven to be increasingly incompetent and you have a perfect crap-storm instead of the needed cooperation. Not that the banks care, mind you. The longer this goes on the better for them as any solution will arrive as a result of sheer exhaustion and not as a result of meaningful compromise. To be fair, this is an almost impossible task as was suggested when this stupidist of all legislation was passed and at some point if there is a God for banks this will be recognized.
If one really wants to limit the amount of market risk taken by governmentally insured institutions ban securities transactions entirely. If the institution still wishes to engage in such business have it be located in a seperately capitalized subsidiary, ban funding from the parent company regulate it as just another securities firm. While one is at it, change the status of the Goldmans and Morgan Stanlies of this world, get them the hell away from the discount window and have the compete on an equal basis with the new entities...funding from the market at market rates and NOT from their parent or sister companies.. Oh, a clear statement from the git-go that these firms are NOT too big to fail will do more to insure proper risk management than anything else. Remember, banks die on the liability side: no funding, no bank. If lenders are convinced there is no bail out they we act accordingly and do their homework.
Now this is going to result in probably far lower profits but hey, you can't have everything. There is, however, the issue of the (mostly) European universal banks and the competative advantages they could have if regulation of this sort were adopted. This is real, but it is real in a far broader context than what has been explored here. Basel III for instance which I plan to introduce tomorrow...unless Euroland gives me an opening. Fat chance of that.
I've been meaning to get back to commenting on the state of banking regulation here and there but to be perfectly honest I really don't understand the state of play and everytime I ask someone supposedly in the know they claim not to know anything either. One thing we do know is that piece of rubbish known as Dodd/Frank, which was supposed to be up and running in July remains in the drafting room with a miriade of problems not the least of which is "the Volker Rule" which, as anticipated and predicted, has tured into a lawmakers nightmare. Definitionally, it was always bound to be difficult but despite claims that "we're almost there" and "it will be ready by the end of the year" it has fallen afoul of the classic D.C. syndrome of the "Turf War." You see, no less than five different entities are claiming ownership of this piece of business and while the banking boys (Fed, FDIC & Treasury) claim there are of one mind, they are not. Lay over that the Commodities lot led by the dreadful Gensler and the SEC which is being proven to be increasingly incompetent and you have a perfect crap-storm instead of the needed cooperation. Not that the banks care, mind you. The longer this goes on the better for them as any solution will arrive as a result of sheer exhaustion and not as a result of meaningful compromise. To be fair, this is an almost impossible task as was suggested when this stupidist of all legislation was passed and at some point if there is a God for banks this will be recognized.
If one really wants to limit the amount of market risk taken by governmentally insured institutions ban securities transactions entirely. If the institution still wishes to engage in such business have it be located in a seperately capitalized subsidiary, ban funding from the parent company regulate it as just another securities firm. While one is at it, change the status of the Goldmans and Morgan Stanlies of this world, get them the hell away from the discount window and have the compete on an equal basis with the new entities...funding from the market at market rates and NOT from their parent or sister companies.. Oh, a clear statement from the git-go that these firms are NOT too big to fail will do more to insure proper risk management than anything else. Remember, banks die on the liability side: no funding, no bank. If lenders are convinced there is no bail out they we act accordingly and do their homework.
Now this is going to result in probably far lower profits but hey, you can't have everything. There is, however, the issue of the (mostly) European universal banks and the competative advantages they could have if regulation of this sort were adopted. This is real, but it is real in a far broader context than what has been explored here. Basel III for instance which I plan to introduce tomorrow...unless Euroland gives me an opening. Fat chance of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)